Attempts to discontinue by accomplices

In order to recognize the attempted crime between the persons who conspired to commit the crime, it should not only waive the criminal intent by itself, but also stop the conduct of the crime by other accomplices.

Articles 26 and 30 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Do1676 delivered on February 25, 1962 (Supreme Court Decision 143Da143 delivered on Supreme Court Decision 17Nu50 delivered on Supreme Court Decision 26Nu1239 delivered on Supreme Court Decision 26Nu1239 delivered on Supreme Court Decision)

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Original Branch Court of Chuncheon District Court of the first instance (67Da1356)

Supreme Court Decision 68Do1031 Decided September 30, 1968

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

One hundred and sixty days of detention days prior to the imposition of judgment in the first instance against the accused shall be included in the above sentence.

The gist of the grounds for appeal against the prosecutor's appeal against the defendant in this case is that the court below acknowledged the defendant as the attempted to suspend the criminal facts against the defendant, but the original attempted to suspend the criminal acts against the other accomplices should also be discontinued, and the defendant did not have any effect on the decision of the court below as the court below's misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the attempted to suspend the penbing, and it cannot be said that the above measures of the court below did not affect the decision, and the sentence against the defendant in this case is unfair because it is too uneasible in light of the crime.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant's attorney Kim Jong-chul was the crime of homicideing the defendant's act as a preliminary preparation. However, at the time when the defendant wanted to do so against the victim non-indicted 1, the court below committed the defendant's act, but at the time when co-defendant 1 of the court below who was a co-defendant 1 of the court below decided to kills the above victim, the defendant was in concert with him, but it was not expected to do so, but it was merely a mere idea that he would make him to do so, and even when he had the weapon of the co-defendant 1 of the same defendant, the defendant was extremely provoking and the co-defendant was trying to prevent the crime.However, even though the court below dealt with the defendant as a preliminary crime of murder, it erred by recognizing the fact that the court below dealt with the defendant as a preliminary crime of murder, and thus, it is unfair that the sentence against the defendant is too too unreasonable.

Therefore, first, I will examine the violation of the law, which is the reason for appeal, to the defendant of the prosecutor.

The court below's decision on the defendant's holding that it is clear in the judgment of the court below that the defendant's 2 and 3 so-called "each of the 2 and 3 so-called, each of the 2 and 3 so-called, each of the 2 and 3 so-called, each of which is a crime of suspending murder, shall be

However, in this case, the defendant, according to the above judgment of the court below, he conspired to kill Co-defendant 1 and the victim Non-Indicted 1 of this case, but he decided that he did not give up his intention of crime and did not intend to suspend his criminal act. After he decided that he did not give up his intention to commit the crime, Co-defendant 1 of the court below, or Co-defendant 1 of the court below decided that he did not give up his intention to commit the crime after he did not give up his intention to commit the crime. After he decided that he did not give up his intention to commit the crime, Co-defendant 1 of the court below's decision that he did not deal with the purpose of murder with his intention to murder after he went back to his house at the same time. Thus, it is clear that he did not give up his opportunity to kill Non-Indicted 1 of the victim, who is the co-defendant 1 of the court below, as the co-defendant 2 of the court below, but did not have any opportunity to do so.

Even though the court below dealt with the defendant's above act as an attempted discontinuance, it cannot be said that it affected the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the attempted discontinuance. This issue is well-grounded, and the judgment of the court below should be reversed in this point without having to make a decision on the remaining grounds for appeal of the prosecutor and the grounds for appeal of the defendant's defense counsel. Thus, this Court decided to reverse the judgment of the court below against the defendant pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and changed the facts charged against the defendant to the preliminary conspiracy for murder, and its applicable legal provisions also changed to Articles 255 and 250 of the Criminal Act. Thus, this Court shall be decided again after pleading as follows.

(Criminal) The Defendant was a person engaged in agriculture in a residential area. The Defendant was a person who is engaged in agriculture in the same village, and the victim Nonindicted Party 1 conspired to complete the payment of the raw water of Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 4 on May 30, 1967, and the Defendant’s pro-friendly Nonindicted Party 3, the Defendant was also detained by the above kimchi agreement inasmuch as Nonindicted Party 3, who was the Defendant’s pro-friendly son from the village, has cut down about one percent of the standing timber without permission on May 1967. When Nonindicted Party 4, who was the Defendant’s father, was fluored and died, the Defendant conspired to do so on the part of Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 4 on May 30, 1967, and had the opportunity to do so.

(1) On July 27, 1967, Nonindicted Party 1 was carrying trees on a fluor, and out of the Dong Ri, the Defendant et al. had the opportunity to return to the fluor late, and had the fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral at the fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral at the fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral, the Defendant et al. was able to kill the fluoral fluoral fluor, and the Defendant et al. had the fluoral fluoral fluoral fluor flus

The Defendants reported that Nonindicted 1, on August 24, 24 of the same year (former July 9, 200, hereinafter referred to as the “Nonindicted 1”) had 2 mecherba and left the dynamic dialogue market, and thought that she would murder by using an opportunity that she would return late, 8:30 p.m. on that day, Co-Defendant 1 of the lower court had a knick gun and live ammunition, and the Defendant was waiting in the knick field of the knbsle of the above implied streets, while she was waiting in the knbsle of the knbsle, the Nonindicted 1

Article 22(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the Defendants are able to kill, and that the Defendants were able to kill, and that they were able to kill, and that Non-Indicted 1 was able to kill, and that Non-Indicted 1 was able to kill, and that Non-Indicted 1 was able to kill, and that Non-Indicted 1 was able to kill.

(Evidence Relationship)

1. The part of the statements that correspond to the facts of the judgment prior to the remanding of the Defendants and the judgment of the court below

1. Each protocol of interrogation of the suspect as to the Defendants and Non-Indicted 5 as to the prosecutor's protocol of interrogation as to Non-Indicted 5

1. Records corresponding to each judgment in the records of seizure and verification of affairs conducted by judicial police officers;

(Application of Law)

The court below's judgment (general 1 crime) falls under Articles 255 and 250 (1) of the Criminal Act, and thus, the defendant shall be sentenced to three years of imprisonment within the prescribed term of punishment, and 160 days of detention prior to the pronouncement of judgment in the court of first instance against the defendant under Article 57 of the same Act shall be included in the above punishment.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Judge)